RFD: sci.astro.hst moderated
Paul A. Scowen
this is the official announcement for discussion for or against the creation
of a newsgroup for discussion of processing techniques involved with the
goals of obtaining scientific results from the Hubble Space Telescope.
This enterprise has attracted interest from several interested parties already
including personnel at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore.
Please post your opinions on the matter to newws.groups.
The name of the group needs to be determined. I have already asked
those people involved with the renaming of certain groups recently to
give their opinion, to avoid any renamimg hassles later. My initial
couple of suggestions are:
sci.astro.hst
alt.sci.astro.hst
Please include any preferences or objections/suggestions in your post. I am
putting myself foward as a candidate for moderator of this group. I think
that the group should be moderated to allow all the requests for the latest
pictures to be threshed out to leave the process of active discussion of
the scientific issues as the clear raison d'etre of the group. Please
include your comments on this matter in your post, too.
In addition to these matters, a charter needs to be assembled for the group.
My initial suggestion is that this group be created purely for the
activities of those people involved with the processing of ST data, and those
people involved with the development of the software to aid them. This
group is not intended to be for requests for the latest "pretty pictures",
hence the idea of moderation being applied. The reason for the idea was
that at a recent conference on Astronomical Data Analysis, a clear need was
expressed by those people who are involved as such for this type of a
discussion and news dissemination facility (I think the whole reason why
USENET appeared anyhow). Please add any qualifications, or clarifications,
to this initial charter with your post.
Since this posting is being submitted on November 14th, 1991, according to
the USENET guidelines, we have until December 14th, 1991 to register our
opinions and preferences.
Steinn Sigurdsson
>Hello,
>This enterprise has attracted interest from several interested parties already
>including personnel at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore.
>Please post your opinions on the matter to newws.groups.
>
>The name of the group needs to be determined. I have already asked
> sci.astro.hst
Do it. Excellent idea.
I (straw) vote for sci... - I don't
think it belongs in the alt hierarchy, especially
as it will be moderated.
Would suggest you try to get the observing schedule,
AOs and the general info in the hard copy newsletter
sent out also on the group.
| Steinn Sigurdsson |I saw two shooting stars last night |
| Lick Observatory,UCSC |I wished on them but they were only satellites |
| ste...@helios.ucsc |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? |
| "standard disclaimer" |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983 |
Steven J. Edwards
>
> this is the official announcement for discussion for or against the creation
> of a newsgroup for discussion of processing techniques involved with the
> goals of obtaining scientific results from the Hubble Space Telescope.
>
> This enterprise has attracted interest from several interested parties already
> including personnel at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore.
> Please post your opinions on the matter to newws.groups.
>
> The name of the group needs to be determined. I have already asked
> those people involved with the renaming of certain groups recently to
> give their opinion, to avoid any renamimg hassles later. My initial
> couple of suggestions are:
>
> sci.astro.hst
> alt.sci.astro.hst
>
> Please include any preferences or objections/suggestions in your post. I am
> putting myself foward as a candidate for moderator of this group. I think
> that the group should be moderated to allow all the requests for the latest
> pictures to be threshed out to leave the process of active discussion of
> the scientific issues as the clear raison d'etre of the group. Please
> include your comments on this matter in your post, too.
[deletia]
I think that a more general classification is needed with
respect to the newsgroup name. There are many more observing
spacecraft than just the HST, so a more general naming schema should
be used to allow for expansion. Therefore, I recommend:
sci.astro.obsat general probe discussion
sci.astro.obsat.hst Hubble Space Telescope
sci.astro.obsat.galileo Galileo Jupiter probe
sci.astro.obsat.ulysses ESA/USA Ulysses Solar probe
sci.astro.obsat.compton Compton Observatory
sci.astro.obsat.mars Mars Observer
with subgroups creates as the need arises. Also there could be other
subgroups, possibly something like:
sci.astro.pictures Digitized photography
sci.astro.empherides Tables and charts
I am uneasy with the idea of newsgroup moderation. I think that if
the group hierarchy is properly arranged then most posters will post
in the appropriate places. However, I would choose a moderated
newsgroup instead of no newsgroup at all. If the above "sci.astro"
subtree is not approved, then the equivalent "alt.astro" subtree could
be implemented.
[The above opinions expressed are my own; not necessarily held by others.]
== Steven J. Edwards Bull HN Information Systems Inc. ==
== (508) 294-3484 300 Concord Road MS 820A ==
== s...@xylos.ma30.bull.com Billerica, MA 01821 USA ==
"That Government which Governs the Least, Governs Best." -- Thomas Jefferson
Paul J. Schinder
>In article <ty0p#r...@rpi.edu> u...@spacsun.rice.edu (Paul A. Scowen) writes:
[proposal for sci.astro.hst]
> I think that a more general classification is needed with
>respect to the newsgroup name. There are many more observing
>spacecraft than just the HST, so a more general naming schema should
>be used to allow for expansion. Therefore, I recommend:
> sci.astro.obsat general probe discussion
> sci.astro.obsat.hst Hubble Space Telescope
> sci.astro.obsat.galileo Galileo Jupiter probe
> sci.astro.obsat.ulysses ESA/USA Ulysses Solar probe
> sci.astro.obsat.compton Compton Observatory
> sci.astro.obsat.mars Mars Observer
Can someone tell me why any of the proposed groups are necessary? Why
not use sci.astro, which is a low volume group, for discussions of the
type you're proposing?
>with subgroups creates as the need arises. Also there could be other
>subgroups, possibly something like:
> sci.astro.pictures Digitized photography
> sci.astro.empherides Tables and charts
This on the other hand, might be a good idea, if pictures, tables and
charts were ever a large part of the volume in sci.astro. However,
for the same reasons as have been given recently for rec.binaries,
we'd probably want something like sci.binaries.astro as the name.
> [The above opinions expressed are my own; not necessarily held by others.]
> == Steven J. Edwards Bull HN Information Systems Inc. ==
> == (508) 294-3484 300 Concord Road MS 820A ==
> == s...@xylos.ma30.bull.com Billerica, MA 01821 USA ==
>"That Government which Governs the Least, Governs Best." -- Thomas Jefferson
--
--------
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center/Dept. of Astronomy, Cornell University
schi...@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Paul A. Scowen
|> Can someone tell me why any of the proposed groups are necessary? Why
|> not use sci.astro, which is a low volume group, for discussions of the
|> type you're proposing?
|>
|> >with subgroups creates as the need arises. Also there could be other
|> >subgroups, possibly something like:
|>
|> > sci.astro.pictures Digitized photography
|> > sci.astro.empherides Tables and charts
|>
|> This on the other hand, might be a good idea, if pictures, tables and
|> charts were ever a large part of the volume in sci.astro. However,
|> for the same reasons as have been given recently for rec.binaries,
|> we'd probably want something like sci.binaries.astro as the name.
|>
|> Paul J. Schinder
|> NASA Goddard Space Flight Center/Dept. of Astronomy, Cornell University
|> schi...@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
I think to include all the discussions of the complexities of image and
spectral processing in sci.astro is a bad idea because most of the people who
appear to subscribe to the group (and post) are on the more amateur end of the
market, with a core of professionals. For the user of such a group for ST, it
would be a lot easier for all the articles to be located in a single set with
the more mundane and irrelevant articles redirected to sci.astro to be dealt
with there - this is intended to be a professional newsgroup.
|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|
- __________ -
| Paul A. Scowen / ___ ___ \ |
- Department of Space Physics and Astronomy / / @ \/ @ \ \ -
| Rice University, Houston TX 77251 \ \___/\___/ /\ |
- Tel: (713) 527-8101 x2433, x3534 \____\/____/|| -
| FAX: (713) 285-5143 / /\\\\\// |
- Internet: u...@spacsun.rice.edu | |\\\\\\ -
| sco...@vega.rice.edu \ \\\\\\ |
- u...@regulus.rice.edu \______/\\\\ -
| Span: RICE::SCOWEN _||_||_ |
- -- -- -
|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|
Greg Scott Hennessy
# I think that a more general classification is needed with
#respect to the newsgroup name. There are many more observing
#spacecraft than just the HST, so a more general naming schema should
#be used to allow for expansion. Therefore, I recommend:
[ 8 different newsgroups]
Eight new groups?!? Massive overkill, especially since these are
supposed to be groups for professions talking to other professionals,
which means that the traffic will be low.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gs...@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Paul J. Schinder
>I think to include all the discussions of the complexities of image and
>spectral processing in sci.astro is a bad idea because most of the people who
>appear to subscribe to the group (and post) are on the more amateur end of the
>market, with a core of professionals. For the user of such a group for ST, it
>would be a lot easier for all the articles to be located in a single set with
>the more mundane and irrelevant articles redirected to sci.astro to be dealt
>with there - this is intended to be a professional newsgroup.
And why can't sci.astro be used as the "professional newsgroup"?
Volume is low, and will probably remain low even though professional
discussion is going on. You won't offend or crowd out the amateurs by
posting professional discussions in sci.astro. Use standard subject
headers ("Subject: HST: ..." for example) if you want to allow
amateurs to easily kill threads.
The trouble with using a newsgroup for serious work in astronomy is a)
how do you post mathematics and data on an ASCII network like Usenet
(maybe less of a problem for astronomy than, say, physics, but still a
problem) and b) why do you want to take up space on the disks of
thousands of sites all over the world when people at only a tiny
fraction of them actually want to see it? Sounds to me what you
actually need is a mailing list.
Or you could just stick with preprints, telephones, faxes, e-mail,
etc. I don't see what it is you expect to gain from a newsgroup, and
anyway, one already exists for you to use. If professional volume in
sci.astro grows large enough, *then* you can split the "professional"
discussion into a new group.
>|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|
>- __________ -
>| Paul A. Scowen / ___ ___ \ |
>- Department of Space Physics and Astronomy / / @ \/ @ \ \ -
>| Rice University, Houston TX 77251 \ \___/\___/ /\ |
>- Tel: (713) 527-8101 x2433, x3534 \____\/____/|| -
>| FAX: (713) 285-5143 / /\\\\\// |
>- Internet: u...@spacsun.rice.edu | |\\\\\\ -
>| sco...@vega.rice.edu \ \\\\\\ |
>- u...@regulus.rice.edu \______/\\\\ -
>| Span: RICE::SCOWEN _||_||_ |
>- -- -- -
>|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|
--
Paul A. Scowen
|> Volume is low, and will probably remain low even though professional
|> discussion is going on. You won't offend or crowd out the amateurs by
|> posting professional discussions in sci.astro. Use standard subject
|> headers ("Subject: HST: ..." for example) if you want to allow
|> amateurs to easily kill threads.
|>
|> The trouble with using a newsgroup for serious work in astronomy is a)
|> how do you post mathematics and data on an ASCII network like Usenet
|> (maybe less of a problem for astronomy than, say, physics, but still a
|> problem) and b) why do you want to take up space on the disks of
|> thousands of sites all over the world when people at only a tiny
|> fraction of them actually want to see it? Sounds to me what you
|> actually need is a mailing list.
|>
|> Or you could just stick with preprints, telephones, faxes, e-mail,
|> etc. I don't see what it is you expect to gain from a newsgroup, and
|> anyway, one already exists for you to use. If professional volume in
|> sci.astro grows large enough, *then* you can split the "professional"
|> discussion into a new group.
|>
|> --------
|> Paul J. Schinder
|> NASA Goddard Space Flight Center/Dept. of Astronomy, Cornell University
|> schi...@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
OK, then please explain this to me. Why did the Institute establish
alt.sci.astro.fits for the discussion of the FITS format in astronomy data
analysis? This is a far more specific topic, and clearly violates all your
well laid out complaints. The suggestion to establish this group came at a
meeting called by the representatives of the Institute at the recent 1st
ADASS meeting in Tucson, and they appeared to think it a good thing.
So, my question is: if the Institute thinks it's a good thing and a whole
bunch of people who would be using it think it's a good idea, then why not use
a separate newsgroup? And I would hardly call a probable posting rate of 5-10
articles a day a disk hog. That argument could be used against greater than
80% of current groups in existence today.
The mathematical formula problem could easily be got around by including the
LaTeX equation representation which could be reconstructed locally in seconds.
From those people I've approached about the use of the plain vanilla sci.astro, they've mostly been against it due to the problem of having to plough through a pile of inane postings - the best example I can think of recently was the incredibly stupid dicussion about the bloody new S&T logo!!
Paul J. Schinder
>OK, then please explain this to me. Why did the Institute establish
>alt.sci.astro.fits for the discussion of the FITS format in astronomy data
>analysis? This is a far more specific topic, and clearly violates all your
>well laid out complaints. The suggestion to establish this group came at a
>meeting called by the representatives of the Institute at the recent 1st
>ADASS meeting in Tucson, and they appeared to think it a good thing.
How should I know; why don't you ask them? I'd hardly hold up a.s.a.f
as a successful newsgroup, since it has incredibly low volume. (I've
subscribed to it from the beginning.) In any event, the alt net is
governed by different rules than regular Usenet hierarchies like sci;
if you want, send out the newgroup for alt.sci.astro.hst right now.
>So, my question is: if the Institute thinks it's a good thing and a whole
>bunch of people who would be using it think it's a good idea, then why not use
>a separate newsgroup? And I would hardly call a probable posting rate of 5-10
>articles a day a disk hog. That argument could be used against greater than
>80% of current groups in existence today.
If there are only going to be 5-10 articles per day, they can easily be
accomodated in sci.astro.
>The mathematical formula problem could easily be got around by including the
>LaTeX equation representation which could be reconstructed locally in seconds.
If you have LaTeX, and know how to use it. I know professional
scientists that either don't have it or wouldn't have a clue how to
get the hardcopy out or throw it on a screen.
(Besides, I prefer plain TeX myself. Maybe there are others who do as well.)
>From those people I've approached about the use of the plain vanilla
>sci.astro, they've mostly been against it due to the problem of having
>to plough through a pile of inane postings - the best example I can
>think of recently was the incredibly stupid dicussion about the bloody
>new S&T logo!!
I see, now it's clear. You don't want sci.astro.hst, you want
sci.astro.we.don't.want.no.steenking.amateurs.
Even if I were forced to read *every* article in sci.astro *every*
day, I'd hardly call it "plowing through". I don't have any sympathy
for people who don't know enough about their newsreading software to
kill off threads they don't want to see. Sci.astro has been
successfully used before for "professional" astronomy; it was a good
source of information on SN1987A, for example.
Demonstrate your need for a group first, by using sci.astro for the
kind of discussion you want. If you generate sufficient volume, then
ask for a group.
>|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|
>- __________ -
>| Paul A. Scowen / ___ ___ \ |
>- Department of Space Physics and Astronomy / / @ \/ @ \ \ -
>| Rice University, Houston TX 77251 \ \___/\___/ /\ |
>- Tel: (713) 527-8101 x2433, x3534 \____\/____/|| -
>| FAX: (713) 285-5143 / /\\\\\// |
>- Internet: u...@spacsun.rice.edu | |\\\\\\ -
>| sco...@vega.rice.edu \ \\\\\\ |
>- u...@regulus.rice.edu \______/\\\\ -
>| Span: RICE::SCOWEN _||_||_ |
>- -- -- -
>|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|
Paul A. Scowen
|> as a successful newsgroup, since it has incredibly low volume. (I've
|> subscribed to it from the beginning.) In any event, the alt net is
|> governed by different rules than regular Usenet hierarchies like sci;
|> if you want, send out the newgroup for alt.sci.astro.hst right now.
OK, I'll agree with you about that newsgroup. But the reason we're going through all this crap, is because in the past year or so many sites have dropped support of ALL alt groups altogether - so we need the sci structure to get the material out to all the sites likely to need it.
|> >So, my question is: if the Institute thinks it's a good thing and a whole
|> >bunch of people who would be using it think it's a good idea, then why not use
|> >a separate newsgroup? And I would hardly call a probable posting rate of 5-10
|> >articles a day a disk hog. That argument could be used against greater than
|> >80% of current groups in existence today.
|>
|> If there are only going to be 5-10 articles per day, they can easily be
|> accomodated in sci.astro.
Yes, but I don't think the problem was a question of space, more the type of readership and quality of postings.
|> >The mathematical formula problem could easily be got around by including the
|> >LaTeX equation representation which could be reconstructed locally in seconds.
|>
|> If you have LaTeX, and know how to use it. I know professional
|> scientists that either don't have it or wouldn't have a clue how to
|> get the hardcopy out or throw it on a screen.
You're kidding? Any person who's using ST has to be able to use either LaTeX or TeX to be able to get at a lot of the documentation and through the proposal procedure. What is your connection to work with ST? I myself am part of a GO team working on data from FOC, WFPC and FOS.
|> (Besides, I prefer plain TeX myself. Maybe there are others who do as well.)
alright use bloody TeX then!
|> >From those people I've approached about the use of the plain vanilla
|> >sci.astro, they've mostly been against it due to the problem of having
|> >to plough through a pile of inane postings - the best example I can
|> >think of recently was the incredibly stupid dicussion about the bloody
|> >new S&T logo!!
|>
|> I see, now it's clear. You don't want sci.astro.hst, you want
|> sci.astro.we.don't.want.no.steenking.amateurs.
|>
|> Even if I were forced to read *every* article in sci.astro *every*
|> day, I'd hardly call it "plowing through". I don't have any sympathy
|> for people who don't know enough about their newsreading software to
|> kill off threads they don't want to see. Sci.astro has been
|> successfully used before for "professional" astronomy; it was a good
|> source of information on SN1987A, for example.
You've missed the bloody point altogether haven't you?! The people who will be using this group DO NOT WANT TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE OTHER STUFF. Most times the subject line doesn't let you in on what the article's about anyway. I wish you'd get your stance right - first we have to be careful to allow for those people who can't use LaTeX, and now we have to assume that all readers can successfully assemble kill files. Get it right, man!
|> Demonstrate your need for a group first, by using sci.astro for the
|> kind of discussion you want. If you generate sufficient volume, then
|> ask for a group.
The demonstration will come like any other group, through the voting procedure. Demanding justification prior to that is unreasonable, although after reading your postings I'm not at all surprised.
|> Paul J. Schinder
|> NASA Goddard Space Flight Center/Dept. of Astronomy, Cornell University
|> schi...@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|
Jonathan M Lennox
>Hello,
>This enterprise has attracted interest from several interested parties already
>including personnel at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore.
>Please post your opinions on the matter to newws.groups.
>
>The name of the group needs to be determined. I have already asked
> sci.astro.hst
I think sci.astro.hubble would be a much nicer name from the namespace
point of view. TLAs are generally frowned upon in newsgroup names,
and are usually quite opaque to the unititiated. (I wouldn't know
what hst was just at a glance.)
sci.astro.space-telescope would be even clearer, but unfortunately
that's 15 characters--no good.
Jonathan Lennox
jm...@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu
Ron Graham
>with subgroups creates as the need arises. Also there could be other
>subgroups, possibly something like:
> sci.astro.pictures Digitized photography
> sci.astro.empherides Tables and charts
What is "empherides"? I have never run into that word before. Is it
the same as, or related to, an "ephemeris"? From the usage, that's my
guess.
I have to have terms defined before I can vote for a group %-). Even
though these have not been formally proposed yet.
RG
Joel Plutchak
>activities of those people involved with the processing of ST data, and those
>people involved with the development of the software to aid them. This
This sounds like a good candidate for a mailing list. A low-volume,
very reader-specific topic may not justify sending the articles to every
machine on the net (as much as I personally and professionally would find
such a discussion interesting).
--
Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer/Analyst
Brown University Planetary Geology
Unix: plut...@porter.geo.brown.edu
VMS: plut...@pggipl.geo.brown.edu -or- PGGIPL::PLUTCHAK (VMS: Just say NO!)
Steven J. Edwards
> s...@xylos.ma30.bull.com writes:
># I think that a more general classification is needed with
>#respect to the newsgroup name. There are many more observing
>#spacecraft than just the HST, so a more general naming schema should
>#be used to allow for expansion. Therefore, I recommend:
>
> [ 8 different newsgroups]
>
> Eight new groups?!? Massive overkill, especially since these are
> supposed to be groups for professions talking to other professionals,
> which means that the traffic will be low.
My apologizes for not being clearer in my original reply. I
do not favor the creation of eight new groups; rather, my proposal was
for a clearer naming schema for expansion purposes. These and other
groups would come on line as increased traffic would justify. The
original proposal for "sci.astro.hst" is just not appropriate for a
(hopefully) growing interest in observational probes.
So lets have
sci.astro.obsat
sci.astro.obsat.hubble
instead of
sci.astro.hst
to allow for a planned and orderly future expansion. I think that
there is also enough traffic now for a
sci.astro.obsat.galileo
and maybe even
sci.astro.obsat.magellan
Paul A. Scowen
|> I think that
|> there is also enough traffic now for a
|>
|> sci.astro.obsat.galileo
|>
|> and maybe even
|>
|> sci.astro.obsat.magellan
|>
|> [The above opinions expressed are my own; not necessarily held by others.]
|> == Steven J. Edwards Bull HN Information Systems Inc. ==
|> == (508) 294-3484 300 Concord Road MS 820A ==
|> == s...@xylos.ma30.bull.com Billerica, MA 01821 USA ==
|> "That Government which Governs the Least, Governs Best." -- Thomas Jefferson
If there are any people out there in a position to start such groups, would they please contact me. Otherwise I think the name sci.astro.hubble is going to be used.
Dave Spain
>
>this is the official announcement for discussion for or against the creation
>of a newsgroup for discussion of processing techniques involved with the
>goals of obtaining scientific results from the Hubble Space Telescope.
>In addition to these matters, a charter needs to be assembled for the group.
>My initial suggestion is that this group be created purely for the
>activities of those people involved with the processing of ST data, and those
>people involved with the development of the software to aid them.
Although it would be nice to have a news group dedicated to the dissemination
of news and discussion about the latest discoveries gleaned on the HST, it
would seem to me that such a function could and is already being handled in
sci.astro and/or sci.space.
Given the rather narrow focus of your proposed charter, it would seem to me
that the needs you have could be more effectively served by a mail-group rather
than by a full blown newsgroup.
Therefore I vote AGAINST the creation of such a newsgroup, based on the given
charter.
Dave Spain
Alliant Computer Systems